iihs.org

Feat(ures) for fleets

American Automotive Leasing AssociationNewport Beach, CAMarch 8, 2016

Adrian LundPresident, IIHS and HLDI

2015 employer’s motor vehicle crash costsIn millions of 2013 dollars, NETS report January 2016

on-the-job off-the-job all

health fringe benefit costs 5,030 21,770 26,800

non-fringe costs 20,140 500 20,640

total 25,170 22,270 47,440

Motor vehicle crash deaths and deaths per billion vehicle miles traveled

1950-2014

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

55,000

60,000

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 20100

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Motor vehiclecrash deaths

Crash deaths perbillion vehicle miles traveled

201410.8 per billion

32,675 deaths

US motor vehicle crash deaths and unemployment rate1950-2014

0

5

10

15

20

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

55,000

60,000

1950 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 2000 05 10

Motor vehicle crash deaths

Unemployment rate

6 percent

32,675

Motor vehicle crash deaths per billion vehicle miles traveled and unemployment rate1950-2014

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

5

10

15

20

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Unemployment rate

Crash deaths perbillion vehicle miles traveled

10.8 per billion

6 percent

Year-to-year percent changes in US motor vehicle crash deaths per billion vehicle miles traveled and unemployment rate1951-2014

-80

-40

0

40

80

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

1950 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 2000 05 10

Crash deaths perbillion vehicle miles traveled

Unemployment rate

Overview of IIHS-HLDI

IIHS is an independent, nonprofit scientific and

educational organization dedicated to reducing the losses

— deaths, injuries and property damage — from crashes on the nation’s roads.

HLDI shares this mission by analyzing insurance

data representing human and economic losses from

crashes and other events related to vehicle ownership.

Both organizations are wholly supported by auto insurers.

Member groupsAcceptance Insurance Gainsco Insurance Oregon Mutual Insurance

ACE Private Risk Services GEICO Corporation Pekin Insurance

Affirmative Insurance The General Insurance PEMCO Insurance

Alfa Alliance Insurance Corporation Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company Plymouth Rock Assurance

Alfa Insurance Goodville Mutual Casualty Company Progressive Insurance

Allstate Insurance Group Grange Insurance PURE Insurance

American Family Mutual Insurance Hallmark Financial Services The Responsive Auto Insurance Company

American National Hanover Insurance Group Rockingham Group

Ameriprise Auto & Home Haulers Insurance Company Safe Auto Insurance Company

Amica Mutual Insurance Company The Hartford Safeco Insurance

Auto Club Enterprises Horace Mann Insurance Companies Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Company

Auto Club Group ICW Group SECURA Insurance

Auto-Ow ners Insurance Imperial Fire & Casualty Insurance Company Sentry Insurance

Aviva Insurance Indiana Farmers Mutual Insurance Company Shelter Insurance

Bankers Insurance Group Infinity Property & Casualty Sompo Japan Insurance Company of America

Bitco Insurance Companies Kemper Corporation South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company

California Casualty Group Kentucky Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Companies Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company

Capital Insurance Group Liberty Mutual Insurance Company State Auto Insurance Companies

Censtat Casualty Company Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company State Farm Insurance Companies

Chubb & Son Main Street America Group Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company

Colorado Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company Mercury Insurance Group Texas Farm Bureau Insurance Companies

Concord Group Insurance Companies MetLife Auto & Home The Travelers Companies

COUNTRY Financial MiddleOak United Educators

CSAA Insurance Group Mississippi Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company USAA

CSE Insurance Group MMG Insurance Utica National Insurance Group

Direct General Corporation Munich Reinsurance America, Inc. Virginia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance

Erie Insurance Group Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance Company West Bend Mutual Insurance Company

Esurance Nationw ide Western National Insurance Group

Washington, DC

Ruckersville, VA

Arlington, VA

Where are we?

Much of the improved highway safety picture is due to vehicle designs

Vehicle and non-vehicle factors and highway safetyPassenger vehicle driver deaths per million vehicles,

actual vs. expected for 1985 fleet

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

calendar year

actual rates

expected rates

Crashworthiness ratings

New car assessment programs (NCAPs)By year of inception

1978 1995 1997 2006 2011

1993 1995 1999 2010 2012

IIHS crashworthiness tests

Front small overlap,

beginning 2012

Front moderate overlap,

beginning 1995

Side impact,

beginning 2003

Rear crash (whiplash mitigation),

beginning 2004

Roof strength,

beginning 2009

Crash protection ratings by model yearImprovements beginning in 1995

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

moderate overlap front

roof strength small overlap front

side impact head restraints and seats

poor

marginal

acceptable

good

IIHS crashworthiness tests

Death and injury reductionsGood versus poor in IIHS tests

Front offset with moderate overlap test

– Fatality risk in head-on crashes is 46 percent lower

Side impact crash test

– Fatality risk in side impact crashes 70 percent lower

– In addition to the benefit of adding side airbag protection for the head

Rear impact test (seat only)

– Neck injury risk in rear crashes is 15 percent lower

– Risk of neck injury requiring 3+ months treatment is 35 percent lower

The Google visionAutonomous vehicles delivering occupants to pre-set destinations

The New YorkerJanuary 11, 2015

Velodyne LIDARused by Google Self-Driving Car

325 ft range with 360º rotation

Short-range radar100 ft range

80º opening angle

Mid-range radar260 ft range,

16º opening angle

Mid-range radar200 ft range,

60º opening angle

Long-range radar650 ft range,

18-20º opening angle

Infrared525 ft range

20º opening angle

Mono/stereo cameras325 ft range, 45º opening angle

LIDAR45 ft range,

27º opening angle

Ultrasonic sensors15 ft range

Driver assistance features

Crash avoidance technologies

Crashes relevant to 4 crash avoidance systemsFARS and GES, 2004-08

all injury fatal

front crash prevention 1,165,000 66,000 879

lane departure prevention 179,000 37,000 7,529

side view assist 395,000 20,000 393

adaptive headlights 142,000 29,000 2,484

total unique crashes 1,866,000 149,000 10,238

Front crash prevention is working

Front crash prevention

Front crash prevention systemsChange in insurance claim frequency

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

Mazda

(Smart

City

Brake

Support)

Mazda

(Smart

City

Brake

Support

& FOW)

Volvo

(City

Safety)

Honda

Accord

camera

(with

LDW)

Honda

Accord

radar

(with

LDW

+ ACC)

Mercedes-

Benz

Volvo Acura Mercedes-

Benz

Subaru

(with

LDW)

Volvo

(with

LDW)

PDL

collision

warning only warning with autobrakelow speed

Front crash prevention systemsChange in insurance claim frequency

warning only

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

Mazda Volvo CitySafety

HondaAccord

(includesLDW)

HondaAccordTouring

Mercedes Volvo Acura Mercedes Subaru Volvo(includes

LDW)

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

Mazda(smartCity

BrakeSupport)

Volvo(City

Safety)

HondaAccordcamera

(withLDW)

HondaAccordradar(withLDW

+ ACC)

Mercedes-Benz

Volvo Acura Mercedes-Benz

Subaru Volvo(withLDW)

MedPay

PIP

Bodilyinjuryliability

low speed warning only warning with autobrake

low speed warning with autobrake

Effects of systems on rear-end strikesPercent difference in police-reported crash rates

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

Honda

Accord

camera(w/LDW)

Honda

Accord

radar(w/LDW+ACC)

Mercedes-

Benz

Volvo warning

only

pooled

Acura Mercedes-

Benz

Subaru

(w/LDW)

Volvo

(w/LDW)

autobrake

pooled

warning onlywarning with

autobrake

Front crash prevention systems are preventing crashes reported to insurersSystems intended to prevent front to rear crashes

10 percent reduction, on average, in property damage liability

claims for vehicles with forward collision warning

14 percent reduction, on average, in PDL claims when FCW

includes emergency autobrake

19 percent reduction in bodily injury claims for vehicles with FCW

and autobrake

If every vehicle had had FCW with autobrake in 2014, we estimate

there would have been more than 700 thousand fewer PDL claims

and more than 200 thousand fewer injury claims.

Other evidence of AEB effectivenessFrom outside the U.S.

Effectiveness of low-speed autonomous emergency braking in real-world

rear-end crashes; Fildes, B. et al. Accident Analysis and Prevention,

August 2015

– 38 percent reduction of rear-end injury crashes for vehicles with systems compared to

those without

Real-World Performance of City Safety Based on Swedish Insurance Data;

Isaksson-Hellman, I. and Lindman, M. 2015 ESV Conference

– 28 percent reduction in front-to-rear insurance claim frequency

AEB Real—world validation using UK motor insurance claims data;

Doyle, M., Edwards, A., Avery. M 2015 ESV Conference

– 1-6 percent reduction in own damage claim frequency

– 8-20 percent reduction in 3rd party damage claim frequency

– 21-45 percent reduction in 3rd party injury claim frequency

Lane departure warning is not working as expected

Lane departure warning

Lane departure warningChange in claim frequency

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

Mercedes-Benz Buick(with

Blindspot)

Mazda HondaAccordcamera

(withFCW)

HondaAccordradar(with

FCW/ACC)

Subaru(with

FCW/AEB)

Volvo(with

FCW/AEB)

PDL collision

Lane departure warningChange in claim frequency

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

Mercedes Buick HondaAccordcamera

(w/FCW)

HondaAccordradar

(w/FCW &ACC)

Subaru(w/

FCW/AEB)

Volvo

-30%

-10%

10%

30%

50%

70%

90%

110%

Mercedes-Benz

Buick(with

Blindspot)

HondaAccordcamera

(withFCW)

HondaAccordradar(with

FCW/ACC)

Subaru(with

FCW/AEB)

Volvo(with

FCW/AEB)

MedPay

PIP

Bodily injury liability

Percent of vehicle owners who reported driving with systems on

0

20

40

60

80

100

Toyotaforward collision

warning

Volvoforward collsion

warning

Dodge and Jeepforward collision

warning

Volvolane departure

warning

Infinitilane departure

warning

unknown

never

sometimes

always

Percent of vehicles with lane departure warning or forward collision warning activatedObservations at Honda Dealers - 2015

percent with

FCW on

percent with

LDW on

Accord99

(n = 98)

40

(n = 139)

CR-V100

(n = 6)

33

(n = 6)

Odyssey100

(n = 77)

25

(n = 120)

total99.5

(n = 182)

32

(n = 265)

Adaptive headlights

Adaptive headlights

Adaptive headlightsChange in claim frequency

-10%

-8%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

Acura Mazda Mercedes-Benz Volvo

PDL collision

Adaptive headlightsChange in claim frequency

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

Acura Mazda Mercedes Volvo

Bodily injury liability

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

Acura Mazda Mercedes-Benz Volvo

MedPay

PIP

Blind spot monitoring

Blind spot monitoring

Blind spot warningChange in claim frequency

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

Acura Mazda Mercedes-Benz Volvo Buick (with LDW)

PDL collision

Blind spot warningChange in claim frequency

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

Acura Mazda Mercedes Volvo Buick

-30

-20

-10

0

10

Acura Mazda Mercedes Volvo Buick(with LDW)

MedPay

PIP

Bodily injury liability

insurance claims

reductions in percent

Collision PDL BIL

front crash prevention2A 9A 15A

2B 14B 19B

adaptive headlights 1 5 8

lane departure prevention 1C (1)C 3D

side view assist (blind spot) 2 10 16

Insurance claim frequency reduction for 4 crash avoidance technologiesPooled estimates across vehicle models

C = Mercedes & Mazda LDW onlyD = Mercedes only

A = FCW without autobrake

B = FCW with autobrake

Front crash prevention testing and rating

Front crash prevention releases

Update of FCP ratings

May 2014

24 additional models evaluated

79 million

Inaugural FCP ratings

September 2013

74 models evaluated

Estimated audience –

58 million

Update of FCP ratings

August 2015

19 additional models evaluated

Front crash prevention ratings

vehicles without forward collision warning or autobrake; or

vehicles equipped with a system that doesn’t meet NHTSA or

IIHS criteria

vehicles earning 1 point for forward collision warning

or 1 point in either 20 or 40 km/h test

vehicles with autobrake that achieve 2-4 points for forward

collision warning and/or performance in autobraking tests

vehicles with autobrake that achieve 5-6 points for forward

collision warning and/or performance in autobraking tests

Front crash prevention ratings2013-16 models (as of February 2016)

134

40

11 10

111

51

28

19

81

56

4034

43

50

37

51

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Not qualified/notavailable

Basic Advanced Superior

2013 2014 2015 2016

Headlight rating system

Vehicle approaches:

– 500 ft. radius left and right curves at 40 mph

– 800 ft. radius left and right curves at 50 mph

– Straightaway at 40 mph

Record illuminance readings for:

– Visibility – edges of road at 10 in. above ground

– Glare – center of oncoming lane (3 ft. 7 in.)

Dynamic headlight test setup

800 ft. radius

500 ft. radius

straightaway

direction of travel

Light sensorarray

Low beam illumination on straight roadh

alo

gen

ha

loge

n

ha

loge

n

ha

loge

n

ha

loge

n

ha

loge

n

ha

loge

n

LED

HID

ha

loge

n LED

ha

loge

n

ha

loge

n

ha

loge

n

ha

loge

n

ha

loge

n

LED

LED HID

LED

HID

ha

loge

n

HID

HID h

alo

gen

LED

LED

LED

LED

HID

HID

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2016Nissan

Maxima

2015Cadillac

ATS

2016HondaAccord

2016Subaru

Outback

2015NissanAltima

2016Mazda 6

2016Lincoln

MKZ

2016Mercedes

C300

2015Infiniti

Q50

2016SubaruLegacy

2015Chrysler

200

2016AcuraTLX

2015Chevrolet

Malibu

2016Buick

Verano

2016Ford

Fusion

2016VolvoS60

2016Mercedes

CLA250

5 lu

x di

stan

ce (

ft.)

not curve-adaptive system

curve-adaptive system

Differences in headlight illuminationDeer is 270 feet from front of car; approximate reach of Accord’s 5 lux

Honda Accord Mercedes C300

Translating test results to ratings

Rating based on:

– Straightaway and curve visibility (weighting roughly 60/40)

– Low and high beams (weighting roughly 75/25)

– Acceptable glare

Bonus given for automatic high beams (“high beam assist”)

Results of all tests will be combined into an overall demerit score

with rating boundaries applied

Results using draft demerit schemeIncludes all test conditions, glare assessment, auto-high-beam bonus

Feat(ure)s for Fleets

TOP SAFETY PICKs

Requirements for 2016 TOP SAFETY PICK awards

Good rating in moderate overlap front, small overlap front,

side, roof strength and head restraint tests

Basic rating for front crash prevention

meet TOP SAFETY PICK criteria

&Advanced or Superior rating for front crash prevention

&

Requirements for 2017TOP SAFETY PICK awardsProposed

Good rating in moderate overlap front, small overlap front,

side, roof strength and head restraint tests

Advanced or Superior rating for front crash prevention

meet TOP SAFETY PICK criteria

&Acceptable rating for front headlamp illumination

&

Effects of increasing belt use in 2014Belt use was estimated at 87% in 2014

target %

belt use

lives

saved

90% 1,057

95% 2,818

100% 4,579

General Motors Seat Belt Assurance System

GM introduced an industry-first Seat Belt Assurance System

(SBAS) in 2014.

This Fleet SBAS feature is available to fleet purchasers as an

option on the 2016 Chevrolet Cruze, Silverado, and Colorado, and

the 2016 GMC Sierra pickup trucks.

General Motors fleet SBAS feature

The Fleet SBAS feature is a seat belt

interlock that prevents the driver from

shifting out of ‘park’ if the driver or a

detected front passenger is unbelted.

The driver will receive a message in the

Driver Information Center indicating that

the shifter is locked, and a seatbelt

needs to be buckled.

General Motors fleet SBAS feature

The Fleet SBAS feature utilizes the driver and front passenger

seat belt buckle switches, the front passenger occupant detection

system, the brake transmission shift interlock, the Driver

Information Center, and the vehicle sensing diagnostic module.

Customer clinic resultsOverall acceptance (with 99% Z-confidence interval for the Mean and StDev = 1.547)

High level of overall

acceptance (92%)

8% felt system was

less than acceptable

Please rate the extent to which you agree with the following statement. Not being

able to shift before both front occupants were buckled was acceptable to me

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

strongly

disagree

neutral strongly

agree

num

be

r o

f p

art

icip

ants

acceptance rating

27 OCTOBER 2016

VIRGINIA, USA

GLOBAL NCAP FLEET SAFETY OPEN DAY

SAVE THE DATE

iihs.org

More information and links to our YouTube channeland Twitter feed at iihs.org